Michael Rosenwald who is a writer for the Washington Post wrote an article called “An Economy of Scales: Paying people to lose weight helps drop pounds and health-care costs.”
He claims that jobs are less intensive than they used to be, therefore the calories stay with us easier.
“Nobody washes, slices, and peels potatoes to make french fries. McDonald’s can serve up a large order for $2.09 in mere seconds.”
The writers wife offered to pay him to lose weight, which economist have found to work.
Makes sense if you pay people to produce and in this cause he is producing a net loss of calories.
Now what would your prices be?
You would have to factor in a few costs…
First costs of being overweight and having to be unhealthy, which could be genetic and sometimes unavoidable.
Second are the costs of losing this weight, which would help you form your price.
- Time to exercise when you could be relaxing or with friends and family.
- Gym membership
- Gas to gym
- To become educated on the good and bad things to eat.
- Cook more at home (which is cheaper in dollars but not in time)
There are obviously other things that could be less costly like wearing black and vertical stripes. Having a good job and most of the time leads to better health insurance.
He states in this article that others believe you need risk factors. That he should take a picture of himself in a Speedo and if he doesn’t lose the weight it will be show in his office.
The last thing is mentions is that some guys from Yale are launching a web site in which you make a contract with yourself and if they don’t lose that amount of weight the money goes to charity or a friend.
Here is the link, but nothing is there yet.
What would an equation like this look like:
(Cost of Working Out + Costs to eat healthy) – health benefits + pride
So you either have to raise the benefits or lower the costs and paying people will do that…